12 ms·

“Snoopers' charter” petition hits signatures target

77 points by tooba 10y ago

iamben 10y ago
I doubt they'll even debate it. And on the off chance they do, it'll be a "we understand the concern, but it's needed and your data will be safe". Frightening, really.
- rlpb 10y ago
  > "...your data will be safe" I'd ask for statutory and automatic (no demonstration of harm required) [minimum] damages of (say) £1000 to every citizen for every breach together with the immediate dismissal of the head of the department responsible if the breach came from a government agency. The government should also pay for the insurance premiums of private companies coerced to implement this scheme against their potential payouts. If my "data will be safe", this shouldn't be a problem to implement as it will have zero cost.
  - derrickdirge 10y ago
    "Oh, did we say 'your data'? Because we meant 'our asses.'"
- TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
  This sentence says it all: "The bill provides a clear and transparent basis for powers already in use by the security and intelligence services, but there need to be further safeguards" People have long gotten used to the idea that the intelligence services are aware of their browsing history, and I think a lot of people are under the belief that this legislation does nothing more than legitimise and regulate the activity that already goes on. People don't seem to realise that it also gives your local council, the Gambling Commission, and the Food Standards Agency the ability to browse this data when they're bored during their lunch hour.
- verbify 10y ago
  They won't debate it, because they already debated it when they passed the bill in the first place. Here's a list of all the times it was discussed in Parliament: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers/stages.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypow...
Thisisrandom8 10y ago
Snowden was right. It's turn key tyranny!
deutronium 10y ago
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-act-snoopers-charter-browsing-history-what-does-it-mean-a7436251.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new... - I'm very curious why the NHS need access to your browsing history, along with everyone else.
- eth0up 10y ago
  The NHS and at least 47 other organizations according to that list.
westmeal 10y ago
Sic semper tyrannus
- schoen 10y ago
  I think you want the dative "tyrannis" rather than nominative "tyrannus". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Second_declension_.28o_stems.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Second_declen...
  - jbigelow76 10y ago
    Or if you hunt dinosaurs, sic semper tyrannosaurus
  - Tomte 10y ago
    I obviously cannot tell what he meant, but in context I think that "tyrannus" makes more sense.
    - grzm 10y ago
      As opposed to the Latin expression? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_semper_tyrannis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_semper_tyrannis Legitimately asking. I'm not sure why it would be anything other than "Thus always to tyrants".
      - Tomte 10y ago
        Latin isn't a set of cast-in-stone strings of words. While sic semper tyrannis is very well known, sic semper tyrannus is also grammatical. "Rest in peace" is well known, but "Rest in pieces" is neither unhead of, nor wrong. It's a riff on a well known phrase. Same here: "Thus always (do) tyrants" As I said, I think it makes more sense here. I think he wanted to call the UK government tyrants, not the spied-upon people.
        grzm 10y ago
        Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I interpreted it more along the lines of the petition as a form of rebellion against the government, which I think would warrant sic temper tyrannis, correct? (Maybe the poster will weigh in and save us the trouble of deciphering his intent :)
Udo 10y ago
Is it just me or does 118k signatures seem absolutely pitiful? I heard it mentioned over and over that the vast majority of citizens is in support of this (and any other) Orwellian law, and judged from a distance this seems like a correct assessment. If there was any public resistance worth mentioning, shouldn't there be millions of people not only giving signatures but protesting in the streets?
- OJFord 10y ago
  Not as compared to others; I think there's a certain sense of 'why bother' once a petition hits 100k (the requirement to be considered for debate).
  - djmobley 10y ago
    Even so, with a concerted effort, you could probably get 118k people to sign just about any petition.
- pjc50 10y ago
  The press generally support it, which tells you all you need to know. I suspect the Mail et al are looking forward to being able to bribe policemen to give them people's browsing histories. The public are remarkably conformist and illiberal compared to even Hacker News. (The UK has never had a populist revolution against a "dictator" to look back on, which means there's a lot of "couldn't happen here". The truth is that there is a history of police repression, it's just on a small scale and directed against groups that can be singled out and made to look non-respectable. Also, I think most UK and US citizens have internalised the idea that intelligence services can look at anything they want, legality be damned.)
redwards510 10y ago
Can someone from the UK please explain what is up with your government officials? How do they get away with passing such unpopular, draconian bills? It just seems bizarre that they could go against the will of the average person so blatantly. Are there "people on the street" who support this charter? Why does England pass such harsh, invasive surveillance laws aimed squarely at their own people? And why does it seem like the Lords (or whoever it is that is passing them) just ignore the cries from their own constituents? I'm sure that I see things tainted through American-goggles but it sure seems sometimes like it's not really a representative-style government.
- rlpb 10y ago
  It's generally justified because "we must do something about the terrorists". Law enforcement agencies claim they need this. In our post-truth world, evidence is not required, and balance doesn't matter. The "terrorist" angle is enough. > Are there "people on the street" who support this charter? I believe so, yes. People are too comfortable and the media scare them about terrorists. State-sponsored abuse of citizens and the need for balance when giving the state powers have been forgotten about.
- zazen 10y ago
  I think most people outside the tech bubble just don't see the importance of protecting privacy. In the USA, I think there isn't that much popular opposition to the NSA? Even after Snowdon? Similar in the UK. Most people just seem to think that if it might help catch some terrorists, then _shrug_.
- mmbaghdad 10y ago
  People don't care cuz they don't think that it'll ever be forced on them "I don't do anything wrong why should I care?". Plus they don't think much about the gravity of the situation, John Oliver did a nice take on this in the Snowden interview episode.
- mmbaghdad 10y ago
  People don't care cuz they don't think that it'll ever be forced on them "I don't do anything wrong why should I care?". Plus they don't think much about the gravity of the situation, John Oliver did a nice take on this in the Snowden interview episode.
djoldman 10y ago
Set a script to visit every website daily? Defeats the intent of the law if the isp doesn't record more info than domains visited..
- roryisok 10y ago
  Set a script to visit EVERY website? There must be hundreds of them by now.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
peeters 10y ago
> The required data covers only the domain name of each site visited - www.facebook.com or www.bbc.com, for example - not the individual pages within them. So this article was the first time I learned the law only requires host logging. But now I'm even more confused...how does the UK Gov argue that logging your access of facebook.com, but not what you do in facebook.com, will help fight terrorism? Like, are terrorists going to isisrecruiting.com? I would've thought they would just use subportions of more popular and general hosts.
- roryisok 10y ago
  yes it does seem pretty silly. Even googling "how to make a homemade bomb" will just be logged as "google.com"
- MarcScott 10y ago
  For the first year... Then there'll be amendments that force ISPs to log the pages viewed, time spent on each page, downloads, etc.
  - NTripleOne 10y ago
    >time spent on each page Is that even universally loggable? Once a page has finished downloading, that's it, your connection is closed and you were technically only 'on' the site for as long as the total transfer took. Of course you could track it via some other (semi)persistant means - but that's more of a site thing than an ISP thing.
- lucozade 10y ago
  I haven't read the legislation but I would fully expect that it would need a warrant to know the details. This sounds like they are formalising the collection of metadata rather than blanket access.
  - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
    Sounds reasonable (to the extent any of this does). In the event of an actual terrorist, this gives them a lot of data so that they can argue they have the UK equivalent of probable cause to subpoena various sites for more detailed browsing history. In theory, it would be something like "Crazy Joe Devola spent 16 hours a day at some hacking site. Better find out what he was looking at". In practice it will be "Facebook, give us access to his file"
Hondor 10y ago
A positive thing is that with so much centralized internet (facebook, twitter, etc), rather than isolated websites, there's not much they'll be able to read from it just by the domain. Are you on the facebook terrorist group or the nanna's group? Everyone will look the same to them.
- amouat 10y ago
  Everybody visits a wide variety of websites. This data is likely to reveal: - if you are suffering from any illnesses (HIV, cancer) - your sexual orientation - your religion Within months, ISPs or govt agencies will be hacked and 3rd parties will have access to this information. The implications are horrifying. EDIT: Also, I suspect the data will be URLs, rather than just domain names, so they will be able to tell a lot from facebook etc. EDIT2: Actually, apparently it will be just IP addresses and domain names (not full URLs): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504192/Operational_Case_for_the_Retention_of_Internet_Connection_Records_-_IP_Bill_introduction.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

77 points by tooba 10y ago

I doubt they'll even debate it. And on the off chance they do, it'll be a "we understand the concern, but it's needed and your data will be safe". Frightening, really.

rlpb 10y ago
> "...your data will be safe" I'd ask for statutory and automatic (no demonstration of harm required) [minimum] damages of (say) £1000 to every citizen for every breach together with the immediate dismissal of the head of the department responsible if the breach came from a government agency. The government should also pay for the insurance premiums of private companies coerced to implement this scheme against their potential payouts. If my "data will be safe", this shouldn't be a problem to implement as it will have zero cost.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  "Oh, did we say 'your data'? Because we meant 'our asses.'"
TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
This sentence says it all: "The bill provides a clear and transparent basis for powers already in use by the security and intelligence services, but there need to be further safeguards" People have long gotten used to the idea that the intelligence services are aware of their browsing history, and I think a lot of people are under the belief that this legislation does nothing more than legitimise and regulate the activity that already goes on. People don't seem to realise that it also gives your local council, the Gambling Commission, and the Food Standards Agency the ability to browse this data when they're bored during their lunch hour.
verbify 10y ago
They won't debate it, because they already debated it when they passed the bill in the first place. Here's a list of all the times it was discussed in Parliament: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers/stages.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypow...

Thisisrandom8 10y ago

Snowden was right. It's turn key tyranny!

deutronium 10y ago

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-act-snoopers-charter-browsing-history-what-does-it-mean-a7436251.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new... - I'm very curious why the NHS need access to your browsing history, along with everyone else.

eth0up 10y ago
The NHS and at least 47 other organizations according to that list.

westmeal 10y ago

Sic semper tyrannus

schoen 10y ago
I think you want the dative "tyrannis" rather than nominative "tyrannus". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Second_declension_.28o_stems.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Second_declen...
- jbigelow76 10y ago
  Or if you hunt dinosaurs, sic semper tyrannosaurus
- Tomte 10y ago
  I obviously cannot tell what he meant, but in context I think that "tyrannus" makes more sense.
  - grzm 10y ago
    As opposed to the Latin expression? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_semper_tyrannis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_semper_tyrannis Legitimately asking. I'm not sure why it would be anything other than "Thus always to tyrants".
    - Tomte 10y ago
      Latin isn't a set of cast-in-stone strings of words. While sic semper tyrannis is very well known, sic semper tyrannus is also grammatical. "Rest in peace" is well known, but "Rest in pieces" is neither unhead of, nor wrong. It's a riff on a well known phrase. Same here: "Thus always (do) tyrants" As I said, I think it makes more sense here. I think he wanted to call the UK government tyrants, not the spied-upon people.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I interpreted it more along the lines of the petition as a form of rebellion against the government, which I think would warrant sic temper tyrannis, correct? (Maybe the poster will weigh in and save us the trouble of deciphering his intent :)

Udo 10y ago

Is it just me or does 118k signatures seem absolutely pitiful? I heard it mentioned over and over that the vast majority of citizens is in support of this (and any other) Orwellian law, and judged from a distance this seems like a correct assessment. If there was any public resistance worth mentioning, shouldn't there be millions of people not only giving signatures but protesting in the streets?

OJFord 10y ago
Not as compared to others; I think there's a certain sense of 'why bother' once a petition hits 100k (the requirement to be considered for debate).
- djmobley 10y ago
  Even so, with a concerted effort, you could probably get 118k people to sign just about any petition.
pjc50 10y ago
The press generally support it, which tells you all you need to know. I suspect the Mail et al are looking forward to being able to bribe policemen to give them people's browsing histories. The public are remarkably conformist and illiberal compared to even Hacker News. (The UK has never had a populist revolution against a "dictator" to look back on, which means there's a lot of "couldn't happen here". The truth is that there is a history of police repression, it's just on a small scale and directed against groups that can be singled out and made to look non-respectable. Also, I think most UK and US citizens have internalised the idea that intelligence services can look at anything they want, legality be damned.)

redwards510 10y ago

Can someone from the UK please explain what is up with your government officials? How do they get away with passing such unpopular, draconian bills? It just seems bizarre that they could go against the will of the average person so blatantly. Are there "people on the street" who support this charter? Why does England pass such harsh, invasive surveillance laws aimed squarely at their own people? And why does it seem like the Lords (or whoever it is that is passing them) just ignore the cries from their own constituents? I'm sure that I see things tainted through American-goggles but it sure seems sometimes like it's not really a representative-style government.

rlpb 10y ago
It's generally justified because "we must do something about the terrorists". Law enforcement agencies claim they need this. In our post-truth world, evidence is not required, and balance doesn't matter. The "terrorist" angle is enough. > Are there "people on the street" who support this charter? I believe so, yes. People are too comfortable and the media scare them about terrorists. State-sponsored abuse of citizens and the need for balance when giving the state powers have been forgotten about.
zazen 10y ago
I think most people outside the tech bubble just don't see the importance of protecting privacy. In the USA, I think there isn't that much popular opposition to the NSA? Even after Snowdon? Similar in the UK. Most people just seem to think that if it might help catch some terrorists, then _shrug_.
mmbaghdad 10y ago
People don't care cuz they don't think that it'll ever be forced on them "I don't do anything wrong why should I care?". Plus they don't think much about the gravity of the situation, John Oliver did a nice take on this in the Snowden interview episode.
mmbaghdad 10y ago
People don't care cuz they don't think that it'll ever be forced on them "I don't do anything wrong why should I care?". Plus they don't think much about the gravity of the situation, John Oliver did a nice take on this in the Snowden interview episode.

djoldman 10y ago

Set a script to visit every website daily? Defeats the intent of the law if the isp doesn't record more info than domains visited..

roryisok 10y ago
Set a script to visit EVERY website? There must be hundreds of them by now.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

peeters 10y ago

> The required data covers only the domain name of each site visited - www.facebook.com or www.bbc.com, for example - not the individual pages within them. So this article was the first time I learned the law only requires host logging. But now I'm even more confused...how does the UK Gov argue that logging your access of facebook.com, but not what you do in facebook.com, will help fight terrorism? Like, are terrorists going to isisrecruiting.com? I would've thought they would just use subportions of more popular and general hosts.

roryisok 10y ago
yes it does seem pretty silly. Even googling "how to make a homemade bomb" will just be logged as "google.com"
MarcScott 10y ago
For the first year... Then there'll be amendments that force ISPs to log the pages viewed, time spent on each page, downloads, etc.
- NTripleOne 10y ago
  >time spent on each page Is that even universally loggable? Once a page has finished downloading, that's it, your connection is closed and you were technically only 'on' the site for as long as the total transfer took. Of course you could track it via some other (semi)persistant means - but that's more of a site thing than an ISP thing.
lucozade 10y ago
I haven't read the legislation but I would fully expect that it would need a warrant to know the details. This sounds like they are formalising the collection of metadata rather than blanket access.
- CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
  Sounds reasonable (to the extent any of this does). In the event of an actual terrorist, this gives them a lot of data so that they can argue they have the UK equivalent of probable cause to subpoena various sites for more detailed browsing history. In theory, it would be something like "Crazy Joe Devola spent 16 hours a day at some hacking site. Better find out what he was looking at". In practice it will be "Facebook, give us access to his file"

Hondor 10y ago

A positive thing is that with so much centralized internet (facebook, twitter, etc), rather than isolated websites, there's not much they'll be able to read from it just by the domain. Are you on the facebook terrorist group or the nanna's group? Everyone will look the same to them.

amouat 10y ago
Everybody visits a wide variety of websites. This data is likely to reveal: - if you are suffering from any illnesses (HIV, cancer) - your sexual orientation - your religion Within months, ISPs or govt agencies will be hacked and 3rd parties will have access to this information. The implications are horrifying. EDIT: Also, I suspect the data will be URLs, rather than just domain names, so they will be able to tell a lot from facebook etc. EDIT2: Actually, apparently it will be just IP addresses and domain names (not full URLs): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504192/Operational_Case_for_the_Retention_of_Internet_Connection_Records_-_IP_Bill_introduction.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...